WHAT THE DATA SHOWS
Three things no org chart can tell you.
01
Hidden Patterns
Silos, centralization, and bottlenecks that limit agility. Every organization has structural problems that aren't visible until you map how people actually collaborate. Network analysis surfaces these patterns with precision.
02
Critical Connectors
The roles and functions that accelerate change or create risk if overloaded. Some people carry a disproportionate share of information flow. When they leave, get overwhelmed, or become a bottleneck, the effects are immediate and often surprising. Network analysis identifies them before that happens.
03
Change Design
How to use informal structures to accelerate adoption. Organizational change succeeds or fails in the informal organization. Network analysis tells you who to activate, where to start, and which interventions are likely to spread.
WHAT WE MEASURE
Three network signatures that explain organizational performance.
When we analyze the network data, we're looking for three primary signatures. Together, they tell us whether the organization's structure is enabling or limiting performance.Leadership Position
Are leaders connected enough? Leaders who are well-connected to the broader organization serve as bridges between strategy and execution. Leaders who are isolated from the network, regardless of seniority, struggle to move information and drive change.Silo Strength
Are teams collaborating across boundaries? The most common structural pattern we see: high within-team connectivity combined with low cross-team connectivity. When 80% of collaboration happens within existing groups, strategic integration becomes nearly impossible.Hub Dependency
Is influence concentrated or distributed? When a small number of individuals carry a disproportionate share of information flow, the organization is fragile. If those hubs leave or become overwhelmed, performance degrades rapidly.
NETWORK ROLES
Two roles that explain most of how organizations actually function.
When we analyze a network, we're looking for more than structural patterns. We're identifying the specific people whose position makes them disproportionately influential: those who hold things together, and those who connect things that wouldn't otherwise connect.
Network Map: Anchor vs. Translator
Anchor
The person everyone goes to.
Anchors are densely connected within their immediate network: often at the center of a function, geography, or leadership layer. They are trusted experts and go-to people who carry a disproportionate share of information flow. Use them to cascade messages, reinforce practices, and maintain alignment during change when people crave clarity.
The caution: over-reliance on anchors creates bottlenecks. When an anchor leaves or becomes overwhelmed, the effects on information flow are immediate and often surprising. Identifying and de-risking anchors is one of the first things we do.
Translator
The person who bridges what would otherwise stay separate.
Translators sit at intersections between functions, geographies, or levels. They are often less central within a single silo but disproportionately connected across silos. They carry messages and intent into diverse parts of the network without dilution, which makes them the fastest lever for change adoption, cross-functional integration, and breaking down siloes.
The caution: translators carry invisible workload. Engaging them strategically, not endlessly, is critical. The network map tells you which translators are already over-extended and which have capacity to absorb new activation.
IN PRACTICE
THE INTERVENTION
The network map identified specific structural gaps: which functions were isolated, which leaders were over-relied upon, and where cross-geographic connections were missing. Recommendations targeted specific behaviors, decision rights, and communication structures causing the silos to persist.
What the network revealed.
THE PROBLEM A professional services firm had grown geographically but not operationally. The network data made this explicit: 80% of collaboration ties were within individual markets. Only 40% of employees agreed that information flowed effectively across the organization. Leadership knew collaboration was broken. They couldn't quantify it, and they couldn't fix what they hadn't mapped. BASELINE| Leadership Position | 83% of leadership connected to the broader org |
| Silo Strength | 80% of ties within markets |
| Hub Dependency | Top 5% hold 52% of information flow |
18 MONTHS LATER
40% to 60%
Information flow agreement
10x
Increase in strategic advisors recognized by clients
80% to 61%
Collaboration ties within markets
52% to 36%
Information flow held by top 5%
"The org chart hadn't changed. The way work flowed had."